Posted - 07/14/2012 : 14:21:47 The first few meetings were far too friendly with both sides saying very good things about each other. Now the real dirty work begins.

The Sporting News is reporting the NHL side has tabled their stance on a number of items. This should get some fur flying:

- player revenue share drops from 57% to 46%- a player must play 10 yrs before they would be eligible for unrestricted free agency- a 5 year max on all contracts, including elimiating signing bonuses and all contract must have equal salaries in each year of the deal- entry level deals move from 3 yrs to 5 yrs- closing the gap between the cap floor and max- no more salary arbitration

Larry Brooks from the NY Post tweeted, "NHL proposal amounts to a Declaration of War against the NHLPA."

Talk about asking for the world. I can't see the players taking any of these suggestions as they are. Granted, I think these things solve a number of issues. Firstly, I do think the owners should get more than 50% of the revenues. They have all the costs and should still be able to make money. Secondly, these dumb long contracts have to end. I also like the idea of a draft pick being with a team for an extended period and free agency taking longer for a player to achieve. I like all of the suggestions.

Discuss.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

Alex116

Posted - 03/16/2013 : 17:06:21 Lol Joshua....enjoy the green beers! I will check in tomorrow to read about why you think the NHL should move to 4 quarters and adopt penalties for excessive goal celebrations!

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 03/16/2013 : 16:53:52 To be brutally honest, when I read the headline and the article initially I was on a hockey site and I misread that this was not an NHL team, as it referenced the Panthers and Carolina. Hey St Patty's Day is tomorrow and I am looking forward to some green beer. This was probably a predrunk something something. I am sure to make a few more mistakes tomorrow

quote:Originally posted by nuxfan

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

I had to post this link with regards to a small market team claiming poverty while receiving decent revenue. I maintained the owners revenues as disclosed were cooked books to show loss when profits were obtainable. here is the first example I could find post lockout. Hate to say it but the owners got what they wanted and the players were justified to suspect they were not receiving 100% truth from the owners.

this is about an NFL team, what does that have to do with the NHL? Or are you implying that a single owner in another sport lied about his earnings, therefore every owner in every sport must be lying about theirs?

nuxfan

Posted - 03/16/2013 : 14:37:27

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

I had to post this link with regards to a small market team claiming poverty while receiving decent revenue. I maintained the owners revenues as disclosed were cooked books to show loss when profits were obtainable. here is the first example I could find post lockout. Hate to say it but the owners got what they wanted and the players were justified to suspect they were not receiving 100% truth from the owners.

this is about an NFL team, what does that have to do with the NHL? Or are you implying that a single owner in another sport lied about his earnings, therefore every owner in every sport must be lying about theirs?

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 03/16/2013 : 13:06:44 I had to post this link with regards to a small market team claiming poverty while receiving decent revenue. I maintained the owners revenues as disclosed were cooked books to show loss when profits were obtainable. here is the first example I could find post lockout. Hate to say it but the owners got what they wanted and the players were justified to suspect they were not receiving 100% truth from the owners.

Of course, agents and GMs will "find a way through loopholes," and that being the case, my money is on the agents.

The agents will always look to maximize their client's value, and GMs will overspend each other (albeit, in the relative confines of the new CBA) to overspend each other to get the best talent. That, in essence, is what the lockout was all about - for the owners to constuct an agreement to protect them from themselves.

To an extent, they have (with the new caps, etc.), but essentially you have two forces who drive up players' salaries - players (through their agents) and GMs (and owners) who can't help themselves.

But there's another important factor (force) here: the fans and/or hockey-related revenues. If the fans come back the same as before (as they did after the 2004-2005 lock-out season), the players and owners will derive the benefits accordingly, and for this, we (the fans) can only blame ourselves.

In essence, the fans (through hockey-related revenues) determine how much the players will earn (50% of HRR) and how much the owners rake in (their 50% of HRR, of course after expenses), so it remains to be seen if the lock-out will impact the owners and players in a negative (or positive) fashion.

After the 2004-2005 lock-out, revenues went up (and up and up), so the players definitely made more. But the jury is out on whether the owners made more money. (Hence the lock-out.) Let's see what happens this time, especially if league revenues stay the same, or if fan support (and TV, sponsor support, etc.) decreases. Alternatively, if HRR go up, the players will make more, but will the teams?

Revenue's went up but expenses went up beyond the owners control. Most owners got expensive new stadiums or upgrades, signed new lease for Arena, expensive scoreboards and have increased player travel, equipment expenses. The player revenue went down accordingly from the 73% area to 57% and the owners thought that would be enough to compensate for the added expenses. Now that player expenses have gone down again dont expect all to right the books over night.

Guest9880

Posted - 01/07/2013 : 20:41:19 Well I'm wrong. It appears the penalty is on for trading a player with a contract longer than 6 yrs. But the math is a little bit more complicated.

Fans have a say in the player's and owners income. Don't watch and neither the owners or players make money. How about that? Unfortunately fans are chumps like the owners and GMs, we'll pay whatever the price.

Guest9880

Posted - 01/07/2013 : 20:32:20

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Does anyone know if the NHL was able to get their suggestion into the agreement regarding retired players under contract?? At one point the NHL wanted the cap hit to go to the team who signed a player to one of these back diving deals in the case the player retired. Even if that player was traded, the cap hit would go back to the original team who signed the player.

Does anyone know if that made the CBA??

One final point: Not unlike the last CBA, I don't think anyone can call a winner or a loser at this point. After the 2005 CBA almost everyone talked about everything the players gave up only for the vast majority of them to get significantly richer than they would have before. Who knows if this deal is a owners win or a players win.

But one things is for certain: Agents and GMs WILL find a way through loopholes in this agreement. It happens with every agreement and always will.

Don't remember seeing that in the summary. That's a big change from the last so it should have been mentioned.

Agents will ask for the moon for the players. GMs don't have to pay it. They don't. With the exception of the salary arbitration under $3.5M, they can just walk away, but as always they won't. That is the owner's and GM's problem they won't walk away from an agent's demand of the moon.

As Josh mentioned, Players salary will be way over the HRR percentage for this and the next couple of years. If for some reason revenue goes back to the $3.3B, average salary cap is of $55M, which means upper and lower limits of about $48M to $62M. So hello escrow.

Guest4377

Posted - 01/07/2013 : 20:29:24 Of course, agents and GMs will "find a way through loopholes," and that being the case, my money is on the agents.

The agents will always look to maximize their client's value, and GMs will overspend each other (albeit, in the relative confines of the new CBA) to overspend each other to get the best talent. That, in essence, is what the lockout was all about - for the owners to constuct an agreement to protect them from themselves.

To an extent, they have (with the new caps, etc.), but essentially you have two forces who drive up players' salaries - players (through their agents) and GMs (and owners) who can't help themselves.

But there's another important factor (force) here: the fans and/or hockey-related revenues. If the fans come back the same as before (as they did after the 2004-2005 lock-out season), the players and owners will derive the benefits accordingly, and for this, we (the fans) can only blame ourselves.

In essence, the fans (through hockey-related revenues) determine how much the players will earn (50% of HRR) and how much the owners rake in (their 50% of HRR, of course after expenses), so it remains to be seen if the lock-out will impact the owners and players in a negative (or positive) fashion.

After the 2004-2005 lock-out, revenues went up (and up and up), so the players definitely made more. But the jury is out on whether the owners made more money. (Hence the lock-out.) Let's see what happens this time, especially if league revenues stay the same, or if fan support (and TV, sponsor support, etc.) decreases. Alternatively, if HRR go up, the players will make more, but will the teams?

Beans15

Posted - 01/07/2013 : 17:03:23 Does anyone know if the NHL was able to get their suggestion into the agreement regarding retired players under contract?? At one point the NHL wanted the cap hit to go to the team who signed a player to one of these back diving deals in the case the player retired. Even if that player was traded, the cap hit would go back to the original team who signed the player.

Does anyone know if that made the CBA??

One final point: Not unlike the last CBA, I don't think anyone can call a winner or a loser at this point. After the 2005 CBA almost everyone talked about everything the players gave up only for the vast majority of them to get significantly richer than they would have before. Who knows if this deal is a owners win or a players win.

But one things is for certain: Agents and GMs WILL find a way through loopholes in this agreement. It happens with every agreement and always will.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 01/07/2013 : 13:51:55 I think the new CBA either limits or removes signing bonuses. That was in the last Owner proposal and heard no objection by the union to that point. Either way the opening contract has set limits which would include the signing bonus as year one income and there can be no deviation yearly greater than 35% from year to year. The years overall cannot be greater than 50% difference from year one to end year contract value on any particular year. Looks like back diving contracts are a thing of the past. Of course year 1 could be as much as twice as greater than the final year. If I was a GM I would have the lowest year during the final season to put myself in a position to buyout should player value drop in the final years.

nuxfan

Posted - 01/07/2013 : 08:58:51

quote:Originally posted by Guest4350Do signing bonuses count as part of the salary? Otherwise you front load the contract with signing bonuses but salary is lower. So similar to guest's post but $5M signing bonus and $5M salary. Do the same for yr 2 and 3 (no bonus in last 4 yrs and 35% of only salary), in the final year salary would only be $2.5M. This would be a significant reduction to cap hit.

Under the old CBA, signing bonuses count as salary, and count fully towards the cap. I don't know what the new CBA will look like in regards to bonuses, but I would be stunned if, after all this, they left that sort of loophole in - because you know they'll abuse the hell out of it. Why put in a clause specific to year to year variances, and then allow yourself to circumvent it via signing bonuses?

Guest4350

Posted - 01/07/2013 : 07:14:57

quote:Originally posted by nuxfan

2. Nothing is stopping owners from signing this sort of contract, but what is their advantage for doing so? The whole purpose of the front loaded contract was a) to get money to players up front, and b) to hopefully have them retire before the end of the deal so the cap hit disappears before the contract does. Players with a contract such as your example would certainly stay around for the last year at 5M - as opposed to Luongo/Hossa/Parise/Suter/Weber, who will almost certainly retire before theirs end. If the player stays until the end of the deal, then the advantage to the team is lost - as an owner, you may as well offer 4.5M a year for 7 years and save your up-front money. IMO the new limitations go a long way to solving the problem of front loaded contracts.

Do signing bonuses count as part of the salary? Otherwise you front load the contract with signing bonuses but salary is lower. So similar to guest's post but $5M signing bonus and $5M salary. Do the same for yr 2 and 3 (no bonus in last 4 yrs and 35% of only salary), in the final year salary would only be $2.5M. This would be a significant reduction to cap hit.

nuxfan

Posted - 01/06/2013 : 13:39:03

quote:Originally posted by Guest9880

A couple of things that are interesting to me is:

1. Will anyone watch and what would the revenue be?2. There are provisions in the agreement that will allow the GMs to circumvent cap rules. "The salary variance on contracts from year to year cannot vary more than 35 per cent and the final year cannot vary more than 50 per cent of the highest year." So what is stopping the GM from offering $10M, $6.5M, $4.3M, $2.8M, $1.8M, $1.2M, $5M for a total cap hit of $4.5M?3. Salary arbitration of under $3.5M must be accepted by the team.

This is what they come up with after being so close in December?. This should have taken no more than a week from the December 6 session. I can't believe it took a full month to get to this agreement. The owners must be losing more money than they are letting on.

1. I suspect people will begin to watch again, at least in Canada and big American markets. All sorts of bitching while the lockout is on, but once hockey is back it will be hard to resist long term.

2. Nothing is stopping owners from signing this sort of contract, but what is their advantage for doing so? The whole purpose of the front loaded contract was a) to get money to players up front, and b) to hopefully have them retire before the end of the deal so the cap hit disappears before the contract does. Players with a contract such as your example would certainly stay around for the last year at 5M - as opposed to Luongo/Hossa/Parise/Suter/Weber, who will almost certainly retire before theirs end. If the player stays until the end of the deal, then the advantage to the team is lost - as an owner, you may as well offer 4.5M a year for 7 years and save your up-front money. IMO the new limitations go a long way to solving the problem of front loaded contracts.

3. Yeah, I was surprised by that as well - that gives players a lot of leverage over teams when they go to arbitration.

It does seem like the owners capitulated a lot in this deal, but the big prize - a 50/50 split in overall revenue - undoubtedly went to the owners, and will have more impact on their bottom lines than any other provision in this deal.

Guest9880

Posted - 01/06/2013 : 08:00:14 A couple of things that are interesting to me is:

1. Will anyone watch and what would the revenue be?2. There are provisions in the agreement that will allow the GMs to circumvent cap rules. "The salary variance on contracts from year to year cannot vary more than 35 per cent and the final year cannot vary more than 50 per cent of the highest year." So what is stopping the GM from offering $10M, $6.5M, $4.3M, $2.8M, $1.8M, $1.2M, $5M for a total cap hit of $4.5M?3. Salary arbitration of under $3.5M must be accepted by the team.

This is what they come up with after being so close in December?. This should have taken no more than a week from the December 6 session. I can't believe it took a full month to get to this agreement. The owners must be losing more money than they are letting on.

foolpittier

Posted - 01/06/2013 : 03:40:59 Well looks like the lockout is over. Now what, the 44mil Salerycap for next season should be interesting

Guest9880

Posted - 01/05/2013 : 21:08:10 Like you, I know it is not binding arbritration. Just suggesting the arbritrator slap both parties to wake them up from their dream world, split the small differences and have a season. I mean really this is super small potatoes now.

There are no more hills to die on other than the cancelation of the season.

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 01/05/2013 : 15:25:14 Your suggestion for the mediator only works in binding arbitration. All the mediator is doing is taking issues one party has with the other and making an impartial presentation with suggestions for solutions to problems. He has no authority to split the difference. This type of mediation takes the bad personality away from the presentation, a fresh perspective from an outside source and provides an impartial opinion.

quote:Originally posted by Guest9880

This is getting silly. $60 or $65M cap for the season don't mean nothing if your revenue drops like a stone. Hello escrow at 30%. Meet in the middle at $62.5M call it a day.

Buy out, I like it that they bumped it to 2 per team. This should count as part of the players share. Get over it PA. If a player got paid, then it is the player's share. Not sure if either side is willing to go 50-50 on this, but if it is the sticking point, then it should be 50-50.

Oh yeah, why the heck did it take so long to figure out the "honest mistake"?

If I was the mediator, cut every difference in half. Neither side will like it but too bad, that's what negotiations are all about. The final product neither side will like. If one side reject the solution, public shaming.

It is clear that neither side trusts the other in this negotiation. Players don't trust the owners and Bettman because Bettman and the owners lie. Owners don't trust Fehr and the cattles because Fehr doesn't play the negotaition game like they expected and well, you just can't trust cattles. Hard to have progress if they are wondering if they are being screwed over by the other guy.

Guest9880

Posted - 01/05/2013 : 06:20:54 This is getting silly. $60 or $65M cap for the season don't mean nothing if your revenue drops like a stone. Hello escrow at 30%. Meet in the middle at $62.5M call it a day.

Buy out, I like it that they bumped it to 2 per team. This should count as part of the players share. Get over it PA. If a player got paid, then it is the player's share. Not sure if either side is willing to go 50-50 on this, but if it is the sticking point, then it should be 50-50.

Oh yeah, why the heck did it take so long to figure out the "honest mistake"?

If I was the mediator, cut every difference in half. Neither side will like it but too bad, that's what negotiations are all about. The final product neither side will like. If one side reject the solution, public shaming.

It is clear that neither side trusts the other in this negotiation. Players don't trust the owners and Bettman because Bettman and the owners lie. Owners don't trust Fehr and the cattles because Fehr doesn't play the negotaition game like they expected and well, you just can't trust cattles. Hard to have progress if they are wondering if they are being screwed over by the other guy.

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 01/02/2013 : 08:03:34 I wasn't assuming future revenue at all. The cap is based on projections, based on prior revenue. If I assume anything at all it would be that if the puck is dropped by Jan 15-18th, as is the NHL's hope, revenue for this year will drop sharply. Too many sponsorship and games lost to reach anywhere near last years income. I would go as far as saying $3.3 billion might be unattainable for the next 2 years.

quote:Originally posted by Guest9880

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA$60million x 30 teams = $1,800,000,000 is more than the 50% of $3,300,000,000. from last year which would be $1,650,000,000. But that is assuming all teams spend to the cap.

That is also assuming the NHL will make anywhere close to $3.3B the next few years.

That's alot of people they have pissed off. They will have to reduce ticket prices but jacking up food and drink prices though.

Guest9880

Posted - 01/01/2013 : 17:50:59

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA$60million x 30 teams = $1,800,000,000 is more than the 50% of $3,300,000,000. from last year which would be $1,650,000,000. But that is assuming all teams spend to the cap.

That is also assuming the NHL will make anywhere close to $3.3B the next few years.

That's alot of people they have pissed off. They will have to reduce ticket prices but jacking up food and drink prices though.

Guest8338

Posted - 01/01/2013 : 03:57:38 xcellent post by 9880.

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 12/31/2012 : 10:33:13 The new offer from the NHL has a salary cap of 60 million for the upcoming 2013 season. Does anyone know what the salary cap was suppose to be with the old math formula. I think it was suppose to be $70.5 million. That seems like a pretty steep decline of $10.5 million per team.

$60million x 30 teams = $1,800,000,000 is more than the 50% of $3,300,000,000. from last year which would be $1,650,000,000. But that is assuming all teams spend to the cap. Too bad the Owners proposal didnt have a system in which one team could buy the other teams cap space. As a matter of fact I think the owners proposal has a few inclusion in it which prevent one team from buying the other teams cap space.

Another inclusion which has worked to the players favor has been the inclusion of a one time player buyout, which would count against the players share but not the teams cap. I like this as I am certain we would all like to see certain players, bought out at a reduced rate, but allowing another team which would be leary of a long term or too high contract, but would take the risk with a shorter contract. I am certain Redden will be back in the NHL next year and Gomez will be finding a new home.

Guest9880

Posted - 12/28/2012 : 19:15:59 How can you have a credible negotiation team by the owners when they keep saying the offer is off the table then come back with the same package and meeting the players in the middle? How are the players supposed to trust anything the owners say when their ultimatums don't mean diddly squat?

Dec 6: We can't work with the union rep. All offers we make so far is off the table and hissy fit on full display about how bad the player's rep is to the game.Dec. 28: Oh here is our last offer and we'll meet you half way on some stuff.

1. Why the hell did it take them 22 days to come up with that?2. How is this even bargaining in good faith? Bettman has lied everytime he has said all concessions made is off the table, but then comes back with an improved offer incorporating the old concessions. Stop lying and we'll trust you. If anything get rid of Bettman from the negotiations because he can't be trusted.

It could have been hours, heck seconds and we could be playing in a few days. I'm no negotiating tactician, but even I saw it coming.

Posted - 12/17/2012 : 12:37:02 I wish I had more to post. This seems like the right forum to ask this question. If the Union decertifies and the NHL moves to suspend operations, making the current player contracts null and void, whats to stop a few of these owners from rebranding there teams to something not the NHL and signing these now free agents. There is no collective bargining agreement, no restricted free agents and players no longer need to insure there player contracts with the NHL.

Could a league rise from the ashes without the collective nit wits on the NHL board of governers. I am not calling all the owners nit wits, but a few doves as they have been called are player friendly. There are no longer territorial rights to be infringed upon, so another team could set up shop right next door to the Leafs and Canadians, hell 5 could set up shop in Ontario alone. I think decertification and suspension of operations by the NHL and union could lead this down a strange path.

Of the current NHL teams do any of them have an exclusivity contract with there rinks which would prevent another professional team from playing hockey in there rink. Would a suspension of operations relieve them of these exclusivity clauses?

Another question I have, when the last lockout happened there was an offer on the table to buy the entire NHL by 1 interested group and a group of retired players trying to set up a rebranded WHL. Has anyone heard anything similar this lockout.

Maybe the owners aren't really trying to save themselves from own stupidity. I can see how this can be a point of contention 6 to 10 years from now.

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 12/08/2012 : 08:35:56 I agree on all of your points as these were the owners requests. The players felt by moving towards the owners requests on all 3 issues that the owners would see the concessions and either accept or counter in a meet in the middle position. Just cause one side says this is how it has to be or no deal, doesnt mean the other side has to roll over. It was very close, but the owners chose not to negotiate any longer, take it or leave it and then withdraw all concessions which is the reason this has lasted 3 more days with no end in sight. I have said in the other Fehr post that the union could have put a new proposal in a meet in the middle position, but Fehr is a person not to deal from weakness and I dont know how strong the Union feels on there position, as there are too many moving parts.

Beans15

Posted - 12/08/2012 : 08:14:27 Well, I have been proven wrong, so will stick to my word and back away.

My final comment on this is:

To Joshua's point, the NHLPA stated that dropping the arbitration rights was a not starter. Fair enough. So why, when the NHL has not starters that the PA refuses to address, is that the owners not compromising. On part that people don't seem to get is their issues with how owners overpay players has to be managed in the CBA. If the owners were to say screw it, lets go with the CBA as the payers want and have an agreement between the owners to not do contracts longer than 5 yrs will immediately put the NHL in breech of the CBA. Every detail of how a standard player contract is managed has to be in the CBA.

So the PA is allowed to have non-starters, but the NHL can not. But I am the one that is showing bias.

I'll leave you with that I view as the defining moment of this negotiation to this point.

By the time commissioner Gary Bettman met reporters, he was in a rage over the enthusiasm Donald Fehr expressed while characterizing the status of negotiations.

"I find it almost incomprehensible he did that," said Bettman, who shook as he spoke.

He and deputy commissioner Bill Daly made it clear the league would need the union to include three key elements before any deal is signed:

A 10-year term for the CBA, with a mutual reopener after eight years (the NHLPA offered eight years, with an option to opt out after Year 6).no compliance buyouts (buyouts of player contracts that don't count against a team's salary cap).contract term limits of five years, which Daly described as "the hill we will die on."

"What we got today, quite frankly and disappointingly, missed the mark on all three respects," said Daly. "So for the union to suggest somehow we are close, is cherry picking and it's unfortunate."

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 12/08/2012 : 07:48:27 The way I understand it the origional offer by the players which had no limit on contracts was there origional position. The fact they came down and negotiated to a 8 year position means they have bend or conceded to max termed contracts, not there origional position. The make whole provision may make this and the next few season greater than 50/50, but the owners can not honour the majority of the contracts signed this summer and previous without going above there set limit, again the players moved towards the NHL goals and the owner countered with an acceptable amount of $300 million. The players last proposal matched the owners make whole provisions just not the term or location it was allocated towards.

The arbitration rights removal from the owners first few offers was a non starter for the union, only after the owners backed off did they see the PA put a proposal of value to the owners. The length of the CBA has always been an issue or a negotiable piece in this years round of the CBA. If the owners bend on either the term of contracts or the length of the CBA for the other, this could have or should have been a done deal. Instead the NHL withdraws all conssession's and stepped away from negotiations. One party clearly wants this done now and the other is ready to wait at the detriment of the game.

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

quote:Originally posted by Guest4350

quote:Originally posted by Beans15Bettman spoke exactly about this yesterday. His comments were originally the players issue was money. They said fix the money and we will have a deal. So the owners came back to 50/50 and included the $300 million in make whole. The players then said the issue was the contracting issues. Fix the contract issues and we will have a deal. So the owners came in and left FA and arbitration alone. Then the players started in on pensions issues.

The owner have bent, bent, and bent some more. They are done. The players need to step up and accept some of this on their own.

You are right the players didn't bend at all.

Let's see 57% HRR to 50%.389M make whole to 300MNo limit on contract length to 8 years

That seems to me like the players bent just as much as the owners did. The owners also added new things in their proposal but the players can't?

All the owners had to do was to meet them in the middle of the last proposal, ignore the pension stuff and game on. Nope. Hardball stance and walking away and taking the puck with me.

Not 50/50 with the make whole. The players never accepted the $300 million make whole the NHL offered, the players did not agree.I don't recall their initial offer including anything from a contract perspective. I might be wrong, but that 8 yr offer was a response to the NHL offer of 5 years. I could be wrong, but I think we might be comparing the unlimited length to the 8 yr offer compared to the old CBA and not the players original negotiation point.

As I said, I might be wrong on that. I'm not wrong on the first two.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Beans15

Posted - 12/07/2012 : 18:45:21

quote:Originally posted by Guest4350

quote:Originally posted by Beans15Bettman spoke exactly about this yesterday. His comments were originally the players issue was money. They said fix the money and we will have a deal. So the owners came back to 50/50 and included the $300 million in make whole. The players then said the issue was the contracting issues. Fix the contract issues and we will have a deal. So the owners came in and left FA and arbitration alone. Then the players started in on pensions issues.

The owner have bent, bent, and bent some more. They are done. The players need to step up and accept some of this on their own.

You are right the players didn't bend at all.

Let's see 57% HRR to 50%.389M make whole to 300MNo limit on contract length to 8 years

That seems to me like the players bent just as much as the owners did. The owners also added new things in their proposal but the players can't?

All the owners had to do was to meet them in the middle of the last proposal, ignore the pension stuff and game on. Nope. Hardball stance and walking away and taking the puck with me.

Not 50/50 with the make whole. The players never accepted the $300 million make whole the NHL offered, the players did not agree.I don't recall their initial offer including anything from a contract perspective. I might be wrong, but that 8 yr offer was a response to the NHL offer of 5 years. I could be wrong, but I think we might be comparing the unlimited length to the 8 yr offer compared to the old CBA and not the players original negotiation point.

As I said, I might be wrong on that. I'm not wrong on the first two.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

I am back firmly entrenched on the players side in this dispute. Not that the demands of the BOG are too far to reach a deal, but that they are clearly working toward an end to this dispute. This article is in the Vancouver Sun. The players did not have clear indications that a line in the sand had been drawn and its the clearest indication that they thought the proposal they brought forth was what they believe the BOG would accept. I truly believe this is the best attempt by the union to save a season and the best attempt by the NHL to remove Fehr from negotiations.

If a insurance company paying a claim responded in legalize and I requested to see a lawyer before accepting and they pulled the offer away unless I did not seek representation, I think I would assume all was not on the level too.

Guest4350

Posted - 12/07/2012 : 11:25:23

quote:Originally posted by Beans15Bettman spoke exactly about this yesterday. His comments were originally the players issue was money. They said fix the money and we will have a deal. So the owners came back to 50/50 and included the $300 million in make whole. The players then said the issue was the contracting issues. Fix the contract issues and we will have a deal. So the owners came in and left FA and arbitration alone. Then the players started in on pensions issues.

The owner have bent, bent, and bent some more. They are done. The players need to step up and accept some of this on their own.

You are right the players didn't bend at all.

Let's see 57% HRR to 50%.389M make whole to 300MNo limit on contract length to 8 years

That seems to me like the players bent just as much as the owners did. The owners also added new things in their proposal but the players can't?

All the owners had to do was to meet them in the middle of the last proposal, ignore the pension stuff and game on. Nope. Hardball stance and walking away and taking the puck with me.

Here is another article which more accurately conveys the tricks the NHL and Bettman may be up to. Paint the players and Fehr as the bad guys wrecking this sport, so that the Billionaire can make more millions than what was on the table this week. Bettman and the BOG never expected to come out of this smelling like rose's but now they have made the players smell like crap too.

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 12/07/2012 : 09:24:57 I was starting to find myself a pro-owner side until this morning when I read an article in which relates to how this last ditch effort may have been a smokescreen to dehead Fehr from the union. I posted in the Fehr thread but I will add it here as Fehr supporter information has been requested.

I believe now that Fehr has been embarrassed, the league has withdrawn all consessions and withdrawn from negotiations, the new tactic is to wait the player's out and work a better deal while pressuring Fehr and his hard stance from the head of the union. Brilliant tactic IMO and the reason Bettman offered to recluse himself and Fehr from the negotiations. If the union see's it this way and unifies behind Fehr, this is going to last a long time.

fat_elvis_rocked

Posted - 12/07/2012 : 09:04:55 I hear ya' Beans, and although I was pro-player when this started, I always stated that I thought the revenue sharing had to get to an owner's favored split.

I also think I stated that once negotiations became just that, negotiations, and the players' concerns were being addressed that they would not have much of a leg to stand on if this drug out because of them.

Looks like a bunch of legless stalwarts to me now.

I still have no love for the owners, as I still stand by their inability to control themselves, being the main cause of their own concerns, but I agree, the players are now starting to look like the ones with egg on their faces and it is indeed time to suck it up, get a deal done, get rid of Fehr and start the season.

Beans15

Posted - 12/07/2012 : 08:27:51

quote:Originally posted by Guest4350

When did these things become a non-negotiable? Don't remember seeing this hard stance from the beginning.

The money has been settled and I thought that was the hard part. Then a curve ball with new non-negotiable items. Again the statement of everything is off the table. Didn't we hear that before, but they came back with a similar deal. How credible are these threats?

Bettman spoke exactly about this yesterday. His comments were originally the players issue was money. They said fix the money and we will have a deal. So the owners came back to 50/50 and included the $300 million in make whole. The players then said the issue was the contracting issues. Fix the contract issues and we will have a deal. So the owners came in and left FA and arbitration alone. Then the players started in on pensions issues.

That's when Bettman said enough is enough.

The owner have bent, bent, and bent some more. They are done. The players need to step up and accept some of this on their own.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

nuxfan

Posted - 12/07/2012 : 08:03:05

quote:Originally posted by Guest4350

When did these things become a non-negotiable? Don't remember seeing this hard stance from the beginning.

The money has been settled and I thought that was the hard part. Then a curve ball with new non-negotiable items. Again the statement of everything is off the table. Didn't we hear that before, but they came back with a similar deal. How credible are these threats?

I think these were probably always non-negotiable (at least in the eyes of the NHL), but were not worth talking about until the Really Big Problem (ie, money) was fixed. Except for the last week, the two sides have not been talking very much...

Guest4350

Posted - 12/07/2012 : 07:43:38 When did these things become a non-negotiable? Don't remember seeing this hard stance from the beginning.

The money has been settled and I thought that was the hard part. Then a curve ball with new non-negotiable items. Again the statement of everything is off the table. Didn't we hear that before, but they came back with a similar deal. How credible are these threats?

Beans15

Posted - 12/07/2012 : 07:39:36 Where are all the pro-player/pro-Fehr guys this morning?? I'm hoping to get their insight and thought on the past few days. I think anyone who's comments circle around the owners not giving up anything need to seriously reconsider their positions. The owners have moved from their original offer substantially, including the make whole going to $300 million. The owners agreed to the FA and arbitration rules staying the same even though it penalizes the teams. The 'hill the league is dying on' is one the max 5 year deal and 5% variance year to year. The players outright refusual of that (considering less than 5% of the league would be effected) is unbelievable.

The scary things the owners and players moved further in 1 1/2 days than Fehr and Bettman did in 4 months. Then, it takes less than an hour of Fehr getting back involved to destroy the house of cards.

In my opinion, Fehr is the worst thing to happen to the NHL sinc Allan Eagleson. He has the players fighting a war they can not win for something that does not improve the game or the league.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

nuxfan

Posted - 12/06/2012 : 21:16:39

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

2 small point differences and this should be a done deal.

Looks like those 2 small point differences were gigantic gulfs.

According to the article below: " term limit on player contracts is so important to league it's "the hill we'll die on.""